The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / Landmark Kids Climate Case Will Head Toward Trial, Judges Rule
Landmark Kids Climate Case Will Head Toward Trial, Judges Rule

Landmark Kids Climate Case Will Head Toward Trial, Judges Rule

March 7, 2018 Filed Under: Featured, Liability Litigation

print
By Dana Drugmand

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to sidetrack the Juliana v. United States youth climate case on Wednesday, denying the government’s writ of mandamus request and allowing the landmark lawsuit to proceed toward trial.

The three-judge panel concluded that the writ of mandamus—a rarely requested and even more rarely granted motion to overturn a lower court decision before a trial’s conclusion—was not warranted.

“Absent any discovery order, the mandamus petition is premature insofar as it is premised on a fear of burdensome discovery,” Ninth Circuit chief judge Sidney Thomas wrote in the opinion, noting that discovery had not even begun.

Thomas, along with judges Marsha Berzon and Michelle Friedland, listed five factors that determine if mandamus is appropriate. The first two involve lacking any other means to seek relief. The other three relate to the order by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken,  whether it was erroneous by law, whether it showed a persistent disregard of federal rules and whether it raised problems or issues of first impression.

The government’s argument did not satisfy any of these factors, according to the Ninth Circuit opinion. “The issues that the defendants raise on mandamus are better addressed through the ordinary course of litigation,” Thomas wrote.

The decision comes nearly three months after both sides presented oral arguments in December. Since then, Friedland replaced one of the original judges on the panel, Alex Kozinski, who resigned shortly after the hearing while facing numerous allegations of sexual misconduct over the course of his career.

“The Ninth Circuit just gave us the green light for trial. We will ask the District Court for a trial date in 2018 where we will put the federal government’s dangerous energy system and climate policies on trial for infringing the constitutional rights of young people,” Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs, said in a statement.

The government could still appeal this decision. It could seek a review from the Supreme Court, or it could request a review from the full Ninth Circuit. Olson said it is unlikely that other judges would go against the panel and grant the mandamus order. “The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit has written a very clear and solid opinion that most judges will agree with, that they do not want to open the floodgates to defendants coming into the court of appeals because they lose a motion to dismiss and they don’t want to go to trial,” Olson said in an interview. “That is not how our court system is set up, and they do not want to be open to that kind of defense posturing.”

Olson said her team will request a case management conference next. That will set up a schedule to work with Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin and the Department of Justice to set a tight schedule for discovery. “We hope to be at trial in six months, that’s our goal,” she said.

The young plaintiffs are eager to get that started.

“The question of the last few years has not been ‘do we have a case’ but rather ‘how far will the federal government go to prevent justice.’ We have seen that they are willing to go to many lengths to cover up their crimes and maintain the status quo, but not even the Trump administration can go far enough to escape the inevitable tide of social progress,” added Kiran Oommen, 21-year-old plaintiff from Seattle. The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that we are on the side of justice, and for justice we are moving forward. We’ll see you in court.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Featured, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. New Canadian bill would help cities sue oil industry for climate damages says:
    March 26, 2018 at 2:19 pm

    […] suits against fossil fuel companies. Additionally, 21 young people are suing the U.S. government in the landmark case Juliana v. United States for violating their right to a safe and livable climate. Related legal actions are taking place in […]

  2. Netherlands group to Shell: Stop wrecking the climate or we will sue says:
    April 4, 2018 at 6:42 am

    […] for contributing to climate change. The case has inspired similar actions across the globe, including Juliana v. United States, in which 21 young people are suing the U.S. government for violating their right to a safe and […]

  3. Colombian court orders government to stop deforestation, protect climate says:
    April 5, 2018 at 11:44 pm

    […] other countries. In the U.S., a federal case brought by 21 young people, Juliana v. United States, won a crucial victory last month when an appeals court ruled against the federal government and allowed the case to […]

  4. Youth climate case vs. U.S. government gets October trial date says:
    April 12, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    […] to have the case dismissed, including the most recent, a writ of mandamus request that was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of […]

  5. Trump administration files emergency appeal to thwart youth climate case says:
    July 9, 2018 at 10:55 pm

    […] for writ of mandamus—generally approved only if no other means of relief is available—was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in […]

  6. Trump administration asks Supreme Court to halt kids climate case says:
    July 17, 2018 at 11:06 pm

    […] request—an extraordinary procedural tactic to reverse a lower court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit had previously rejected the government’s original mandamus petition in March. On Monday, the circuit court denied the government’s emergency request for a stay. The appeals […]

  7. Ninth Circuit court rejects latest administration attempt to stop climate suit says:
    July 20, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    […] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a second petition filed by the Trump administration to short-circuit Juliana v. United States, the landmark climate suit filed by 21 young people from across the country.  The latest appeal, one of several last-ditch efforts the administration is trying to avoid discovery and a trial, was a repeat of an earlier petition for a writ of mandamus, which the same court rejected in March. […]

  8. The Banner, Vol. 4, No. 32 – Foreseen Unintended Consequences - The Banner says:
    August 7, 2018 at 7:03 am

    […] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a second petition filed by the Trump administration to short-circuit Juliana v. United States, the landmark climate suit filed by 21 young people from across the country. The latest appeal, one of several last-ditch efforts by the administration in trying to avoid discovery and a trial, was a repeat of an earlier petition for a writ of mandamus, which the same court rejected in March. […]

  9. Trump administration launches third 'Hail Mary' to stop youth climate case says:
    October 12, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    […] of a separate petition it plans to file with the Supreme Court next week. The Ninth Circuit denied the first two requests for a writ of mandamus—a rarely used and even more rarely approved judicial appeal that asks a […]

  10. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41 | Climate Change says:
    October 14, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    […] of a separate petition it plans to file with the Supreme Court next week. The Ninth Circuit denied the first two requests for a writ of mandamus—a rarely used and even more rarely approved judicial […]

  11. The Banner, Vol. 4, No. 42 – Working With the Earth - The Banner says:
    October 16, 2018 at 4:19 am

    […] of a separate petition it plans to file with the Supreme Court next week. The Ninth Circuit denied the first two requests for a writ of mandamus—a rarely used and even more rarely approved judicial appeal that asks a […]

  12. Supreme Court Grants Government’s Extraordinary Appeal, Pauses Kids Climate Case – The Greanville Post says:
    October 21, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    […] a higher court overrules a lower court before a verdict has been issued. The Ninth Circuit has twice turned down the request for mandamus (and a third is pending) and the Supreme Court turned down a […]

  13. Supreme Court grants extraordinary appeal, pauses kids climate case says:
    October 22, 2018 at 2:30 pm

    […] a higher court overrules a lower court before a verdict has been issued. The Ninth Circuit has twice turned down the request for mandamus (and a third is pending) and the Supreme Court turned down a […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • French Government Sued for Inadequate Climate Action
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Baltimore Becomes Latest City to Sue Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Damages

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.